HOME LAW NOTES + PH ELECTIONS + CASE DIGESTS + TRAVEL GAMES + TOYS

LAW TECH WORLD

Law, Technology and the World

You are here: Home 2013 May Civil Law Bar Exam Answers: Torts and Damages

CIVIL LAW BAR EXAM ANSWERS: TORTS AND DAMAGES SEARCH

Published by adminC on May 19, 2013 | Leave a response

Collapse of Structures; Last Clear Chance (1990)

Mr and Mrs R own a burned-out building, the firewall of which collapsed and
destroyed the shop occupied by the family of Mr and Mrs S, which resulted in Law Tech World
injuries to said couple and the death of their daughter. Mr and Mrs S had 581 likes

been warned by Mr & Mrs R to vacate the shop in view of its proximity to the
weakened wall but the former failed to do so.
Like Page
Mr & Mrs S filed against Mr and Mrs R an action for recovery of damages
the former suffered as a result of the collapse of the firewall. In defense, Mr Be the first of your friends to like this

and Mrs R rely on the doctrine of last clear chance alleging that Mr and Mrs S
had the last clear chance to avoid the accident if only they heeded the
former’s warning to vacate the shop, and therefore Mr and Mrs R’s prior
POPULAR POSTS
negligence should be disregarded.

If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? State your reasons. Pokemon Revolution: How
to Get to Giovanni in Silph
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Co Maze (27,934)
Pokemon Revolution: Eevee
I would decide in favor of Mr & Mrs S. The proprietor of a building or
Mission at Game Corner
structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or
Guide (20,802)
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs (Art 2190
Pokemon Revolution: How
Civil Code)
to Get HM01 – Cut (17,363)
As regards the defense of “last clear chance,” the same is not tenable because 2014 Case Digest: Arigo v.
according to the SC in one case (De Roy v. CA L- Swift (16,330)
80718, Jan. 29, 1988, 157 S 757) the doctrine of last clear chance is not Pokemon Revolution: How
applicable to instances covered by Art 2190 of the Civil Code. to Get to Articuno in
Seafoam Island (13,577)
Further, in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v.s IAC (G.R. No. L-65295, 2017 Case Digest: Estipona
March 10, 1987, 148 SCRA 353), the Supreme Court held that the role of v. Lobrigo and People
the common law “last clear chance” doctrine in relation to Article 2179 of the (13,464)
Civil Code is merely to mitigate damages within the context of contributory 2015 Case Digest: Diocese of
negligence. Bacolod v. COMELEC
(12,851)
Damages (1994)
Case Digest: Estrada v.
On January 5, 1992, Nonoy obtained a loan of Pl,000,000.00 from Escritor (11,580)
his friend Raffy. The promissory note did not stipulate any payment for Case Digest: THE
Interest. The note was due on January 5, 1993 but before this date the two PROVINCE OF NORTH
became political enemies. Nonoy, out of spite, deliberately defaulted in COTABATO, et al .… (11,418)
paying the note, thus forcing Raffy to sue him. Case Digest: LA BUGAL
B’LAAN TRIBAL
1) What actual damages can Raffy recover? ASSOCIATION… (11,280)

2) Can Raffy ask for moral damages from Nonoy?

3) Can Raffy ask for nominal damages?

4) Can Raffy ask for temperate damages?

This work by Law Tech World is
5) Can Raffy ask for attorney’s fees? licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0
SUGGESTED ANSWER: International License.

1) Raffy may recover the amount of the promissory note of P1 million,

together with interest at the legal rate from the date of judicial or
extrajudicial demand. In addition, however, inasmuch as the debtor is in
bad faith, he is liable for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to
the non-performance of the obligation. (Art. 2201(2). NCC).

2) Yes, under Article 2220, NCC moral damages are recoverable in case of
breach of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

3) Nominal damages may not be recoverable in this case because Raffy may
already be indemnified of his losses with the award of actual and
compensatory damages. NOMINAL DAMAGES are adjudicated only in
order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the
defendant may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Article 2231. Civil
Code)

4) Raffy may ask for, but would most likely not be awarded temperate
damages, for the reason that his actual damages may already be compensated
upon proof thereof with the promissory note. TEMPERATE DAMAGES
may be awarded only when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved
with certainty. (Article 2224, Civil Code)

5) Yes, under paragraph 2, Article 2208 of the Civil Code, considering that
Nonoy’s act or omission has compelled Raffy to litigate to protect his
interests. Furthermore. attorneys’ fees may be awarded by the court when it
is just and equitable. (Article 2208(110) Civil Code).

Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (1991)

On her third month of pregnancy, Rosemarie, married to Boy, for reasons

known only to her, and without informing Boy, went to the clinic of X, a
known abortionist, who for a fee, removed and expelled the fetus from her
womb, Boy learned of the abortion six (6) months later.

Availing of that portion of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution

which reads;

The State x xx shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception, “xxx” which he claims confers a civil personality on
the unborn from the moment of conception.

Boy filed a case for damages against the abortionist, praying therein that the
latter be ordered to pay him: (a) P30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of
the fetus, (b) P100.000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish and
anxiety he suffered, (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, (d) P20,000.00
as nominal damages, and (e) P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

May actual damages be also recovered? If so, what facts should be alleged
and proved?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, provided that the pecuniary loss suffered should be substantiated and
duly proved.

Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (2003)

If a pregnant woman passenger of a bus were to suffer an abortion following

a vehicular accident due to the gross negligence of the bus driver, may she
and her husband claim damages from the bus company for the death of their
unborn child? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the spouses cannot recover actual damages in the form of indemnity for
the loss of life of the unborn child. This is because the unborn child is not yet
considered a person and the law allows indemnity only for loss of life of
person. The mother, however may recover damages for the bodily injury she
suffered from the loss of the fetus which is considered part of her internal
organ. The parents may also recover damages for injuries that are inflicted
directly upon them, e.g., moral damages for mental anguish that attended the
loss of the unborn child. Since there is gross negligence, exemplary damages
can also be recovered. (Gelus v.CA, 2 SCRA 801 [1961])

Death Indemnity (1994)

Johnny Maton’s conviction for homicide was affirmed by the Court of

Appeals and in addition, although the prosecution had not appealed at all.
The appellate court increased the indemnity for death from P30,000.00 to
P50,000.00. On his appeal to the Supreme Court, among the other things
Johnny Maton brought to the high court’s attention, was the increase of
indemnity imposed by the Court of Appeals despite the clear fact that the
People had not appealed from the appellate court’s judgment.

Is Johnny Maton correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1

a) In Abejam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said that even if the
issue of damages were not raised by the appellant in the Court of Appeals but
the Court of Appeals in its findings increased the damages, the Supreme
Court will not disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.

b) No, the contention of the accused is not correct because upon appeal to the
Appellate Court, the court acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, criminal
as well as civil. Since the conviction of homicide had been appealed, there is
no finality in the amount of indemnity because the civil liability arising from
the crime and the judgment on the crime has not yet become final

c) Yes. Since the civil indemnity is an award in the civil action arising from
the criminal offense, the rule that a party cannot be granted affirmative relief
unless he himself has appealed should apply. Therefore, it was error for the
Court of Appeals to have expanded the indemnity since the judgment on the
civil liability had become final.

d) No. Courts can review matters not assigned as errors.

(Hydro Resource vs. CA . 204 SCRA 309).

Defense; Due Diligence in Selection (2003)

As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab

owned by B, X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later
filed a criminal action against both drivers.

May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in the selection
and supervision of their drivers to be absolved from liability for damages
to X? Reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

It depends. If the civil action is based on a quasi-delict the taxicab owners

may raise the defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of the driver; if the action against them is based on culpa
contractual or civil liability arising from a crime, they cannot raise the
defense.

Filing of Separate Civil Action; Need for Reservation (2003)

As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab

owned by B, X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later
filed a criminal action against both drivers.

Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil action for damages
against both taxicab owners before he can file a civil action for damages
against them? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover damages arising from the
criminal act, reservation is necessary. If the civil action against the taxicab
owners is based on culpa contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no need for
reservation.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No, such reservation is not necessary. Under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000
Rules on Criminal Procedure, what is “deemed instituted” with the
criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the
crime or ex delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the New Civil Code are no longer “deemed instituted”, and may be
filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation
in the criminal action (Section 3, Rule 111, Ibid). The failure to make a
reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate
and independent civil action based on these articles of the New Civil Code
(Casupanan v. Laroya G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002).

Fortuitous Event; Mechanical Defects (2002)

A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego, while negotiating a downhill

slope of a city road, suddenly gained speed, obviously beyond the authorized
limit in the area, and bumped a car in front of it, causing severed damage to
the care and serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando was not in the car at
the time of the incident. The car owner and the injured passengers sued
Orlando and Diego for damages caused by Diego’s negligence. In their
defense, Diego claims that the downhill slope caused the van to gain speed
and that, as he stepped on the brakes to check the acceleration, the brakes
locked, causing the van to go even faster and eventually to hit the car in front
of it. Orlando and Diego contend that the sudden malfunction of the van’s
brake system is a fortuitous even and that, therefore, they are exempt from
any liability.

Is this contention tenable? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle do not constitute fortuitous event,

since the presence of such defects would have been readily detected by
diligent maintenance check. The failure to maintain the vehicle in safe
running condition constitutes negligence.

Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of

an Obligation (2004)

DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent travelers’ club of

FX Airlines. In Hongkong, the couple were assigned seats in Business Class
for which they had bought tickets. On checking in, however, they were told
they were upgraded by computer to First Class for the flight to Manila
because the Business Section was overbooked.

Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food, beverage and other
services in First Class. They said they had guests in Business Class they
should attend to. They felt humiliated, embarrassed and vexed,
however, when the stewardess allegedly threatened to offload them if they
did not avail of the upgrade. Thus they gave in, but during the transfer of
luggage DT suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After arrival in Manila, they
demanded an apology from FX’s management as well as indemnity
payment. When none was forthcoming, they sued the airline for a million
pesos in damages.

Is the airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not? Explain
briefly.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded DT and MT, over

their objections, to First Class because they had contracted for Business Class
passage. However, although there is a breach of contract, DT and MT are
entitled to actual damages only for such pecuniary losses suffered by them as
a result of such breach. There seems to be no showing that they incurred such
pecuniary loss. There is no showing that the pain in DT’s arm and wrist
resulted directly from the carrier’s acts complained of. Hence, they are not
entitled to actual damages. Moreover, DT could have avoided the alleged
injury by requesting the airline staff to do the luggage transfer as a matter of
duty on their part. There is also no basis to award moral damages for such
breach of contract because the facts of the problem do not show bad faith or
fraud on the part of the airline.
(Cathay Pacific v. Vazquez, 399 SCRA 207 [2003]). However,
they may recover moral damages if the cause of action is based on Article 21
of the Civil Code for the humiliation and embarrassment they felt when the
stewardess threatened to offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If it can be proved that DT’s pain in his arm and wrist occasioned by the
transfer of luggage was caused by fault or negligence on the part of the
airline’s stewardess, actual damages may be recovered.

The airline may be liable for moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 (10) if the
cause of action is based on Article 21 or an act contrary to morals in view of
the humiliation suffered by DT and MT when they were separated from their
guests and were threatened to be offloaded.

Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of

an Obligation (2005)

Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country and are frequent
travelers abroad. In 1996, they booked round-trip business class tickets for
the Manila-Hong Kong- Manila route of the Pinoy Airlines, where they are
holders of Gold Mabalos Class Frequent Flier cards. On their return flight,
Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first class without their consent and,
inspite of their protestations to be allowed to remain in the business class so
that they could be with their friends, they were told that the business class
was already fully booked, and that they were given priority in upgrading
because they are elite members/holders of Gold Mabalos Class cards.
Since they were embarrassed at the discussions with the flight attendants,
they were forced to take the flight at the first class section apart from their
friends who were in the business class. Upon their return to Manila, they
demanded a written apology from Pinoy Airlines. When it went unheeded,
the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of contract claiming moral
and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees.

Will the action prosper? Give reasons.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, the action will prosper. Article 2201 of the Civil Code entitles the person
to recover damages which may be attributed to non-performance of an
obligation. In
Alitalia Airways v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990),
when an airline issues ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, a
contract of carriage arises and the passenger expects that he would fly on that
day. When the airline deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to
deprive some passengers of their seat in case all of them would show up. For
the indignity and inconvenience of being refused the confirmed seat, said
passenger is entitled to moral damages.

In the given problem, spouses Almeda had a booked roundtrip business class
ticket with Pinoy Airlines. When their tickets were upgraded to first class
without their consent, Pinoy Airlines breached the contract. As ruled in
Zulueta v. Pan American (G.R. No. L-28589, January 8,1973), in
case of overbooking, airline is in bad faith. Therefore, spouses Almeda are
entitled to damages.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The action may or may not prosper. Moral damages include physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Although incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or
omission. Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage
are recoverable only in instances where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad
faith or where the mishap resulted in the death of a passenger.
(Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60501,
March 5, 1993) Where there is no showing that the airline acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the contract of carriage which the
parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In such a case the
liability does not include moral and exemplary damages.

In the instant case, if the involuntary upgrading of the Almedas’ seat

accommodation was not attended by fraud or bad faith, the award of moral
damages has no leg to stand on.

Thus, spouses would not also be entitled to exemplary damages. It is a

requisite in the grant of exemplary damages that the act of the offender must
be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent
manner.
(Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001) Moreover,
to be entitled thereto, the claimant must first establish his right to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damages. (Art. 2234, Civil Code) Since the
Almedas are not entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary
damages has no legal basis. Where the awards for moral and exemplary
damages are eliminated, so must the award for attorney’s fees be eliminated.
(Orosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111080, April 5, 2000; Morris
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001) The most
that can be adjudged in their favor for Pinoy Airlines’ breach of contract is an
award for nominal damages under Article 2221 of the Civil Code.
(Cathay Pacific Airways v. Sps. Daniel & Maria Luisa Vasquez,
G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003)

However, if spouses Almeda could prove that there was bad faith on the part
of Pinoy Airlines when it breached the contract of carriage, it could be liable
for moral, exemplary as well as attorney’s fees.

Liability; Employer; Damage caused by Employees (1997)

a) When would an employer’s liability for damage, caused by an employee

in the performance of his assigned tasks, be primary and when would it be
subsidiary in nature?

b) Would the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of

the employee be available to the employer in both instances?

SUGGESTED ANSWER::

(a) The employer’s liability for damage based on culpa aquiliana under Art,
2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code is primary; while that under Art. 103 of the
Revised Penal Code is subsidiary.

(b) The defense of diligence in the selection and supervision of the

employee under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is available only to those
primarily liable thereunder, but not to those subsidiarily liable under Article
103 of the Revised Penal Code (Yumul vs. Juliano, 72 Phil. 94).

Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (1996)

Marcial, who does not know how to drive, has always been driven by Ben, his
driver of ten years whom he had chosen carefully and has never figured in a
vehicular mishap. One day, Marcial was riding at the back seat of his
Mercedes Benz being driven along EDSA by Ben. Absorbed in reading a
book, Marcial did not notice that they were approaching the corner of
Quezon Avenue, when the traffic light had just turned yellow. Ben suddenly
stepped on the gas to cross the intersection before the traffic light could turn
red. But, too late. Midway in the intersection, the traffic light changed, and a
Jeepney full of passengers suddenly crossed the car’s path. A collision
between the two vehicles was inevitable. As a result, several jeepney
passengers were seriously injured. A suit for damages based on culpa
aquiliana was filed against Marcial and Ben, seeking to hold them jointly and
severally liable for such injuries.

May Marcial be held liable? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Marcial may not be liable because under Art. 2184, NCC, the owner who is in
the vehicle is not liable with the driver if by the exercise of due diligence he
could have prevented the injury. The law does not require the owner to
supervise the driver every minute that he was driving. Only when through his
negligence, the owner has lost an opportunity to prevent the accident would
he be liable (Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 410 citing Chapman v.
Underwood ang Manlangit v. Mauler, 250 SCRA 560). In this case,
the fact that the owner was absorbed in reading a book does not conclusively
show that he lost the opportunity to prevent the accident through his
negligence.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, Marcial should be held liable. Art. 2164. NCC makes an owner of a motor
vehicle solidarily liable with the driver if, being in the vehicle at the time of
the mishap, he could have prevented it by the exercise of due diligence.
The traffic conditions along EDSA at any time of day or night are such as to
require the observance of utmost care and total alertness in view of the large
number of vehicles running at great speed. Marcial was negligent in that he
rendered himself oblivious to the traffic hazards by reading a book instead of
focusing his attention on the road and supervising the manner in which his
car was being driven. Thus he failed to prevent his driver from attempting to
beat the traffic light at the junction of Quezon Avenue and EDSA, which
Marcial, without being a driver himself could have easily perceived as a
reckless course of conduct.

Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (1998)

A Gallant driven by John and owned by Art, and a Corolla driven by its
owner, Gina, collided somewhere along Adriatico Street. As a result of the
accident, Gina had a concussion. Subsequently. Gina brought an action for
damages against John and Art. There is no doubt that the collision is due to
John’s negligence. Can Art, who was in the vehicle at the time of the accident,
be held solidarily liable with his driver, John?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Art may be held solidary liable with John, if it was proven that the
former could have prevented the misfortune with the use of due
diligence. Article 2184 of the Civil Code states: “In motor mishaps, the owner
is solidary liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could
have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune, x x x”

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

1. It depends. The Supreme Court in

Chapman vs. Underwood (27 Phil 374),held: “An owner who sits in his
automobile, or other vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a violation
of law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable
opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom,
becomes himself responsible for such acts, x x x On the other hand, if the
driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having a
reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a
person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although
present therein at the time the act was committed is not responsible, either
civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the
presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his
acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own.”

Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (2002)

Does the presence of the owner inside the vehicle causing damage to a third
party affect his liability for his driver’s negligence? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is made solidarily liable with his
driver if he (the owner) was in the vehicle and could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the mishap.
(Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 410 [1968]).

Moral Damages & Atty Fees (2002)

Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and install tile materials in a

building he is donating to his province. Ortillo pays 50% of the contract price
as per agreement. It is also agreed that the balance would be payable
periodically after every 10% performance until completed. After performing
about 93% of the contract, for which it has been paid an additional 40% as
per agreement, Fabricato, Inc. did not complete the project due to its sudden
cessation of operations. Instead, Fabricato, Inc. demands payment of the last
10% of the contract despite its non-completion of the project. Ortillo refuses
to pay, invoking the stipulation that payment of the last amount 10% shall be
upon completion. Fabricato, Inc. brings suit for the entire 10%. Plus
damages, Ortillo counters with claims for (a) moral damages for Fabricato,
Inc.’s unfounded suit which has damaged his reputation as a philanthropist
and respect businessman in his community, and (b) attorney’s fees.

A. Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for moral damages?

B. How about his claim for attorney’s fees, having hired a lawyer to defend
him?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. There is no legal basis to Ortillo’s claim for moral damages. It does not fall
under the coverage of Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.

B. Ortillo is entitled to attorney’s fees because Fabricato’s complaint is a case

of malicious prosecution or a clearly unfounded civil action. (Art. 2208 [4]
and [11], NCC).

Moral Damages; Non-Recovery Thereof (2006)

Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in the
cases specified therein several of which are enumerated below.

Choose the case wherein you cannot recover moral damages. Explain.

a) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries

b) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries

c) Immorality or dishonesty

d) Illegal search

e) Malicious prosecution

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Immorality and dishonesty, per se, are not

among those cases enumerated in Article 2219 which can be the basis of
an action for moral damages. The law specifically mentions adultery or
concubinage, etc. but not any and every immoral act.

Quasi-Delict (1992)

As the result of a collision between a public service passenger bus and a

cargo truck owned by D, X sustained physical injuries and Y died. Both X and
Y were passengers of the bus. Both drivers were at fault, and so X and Z, the
only heir and legitimate child of the deceased Y, sued the owners of both
vehicles.

a) May the owner of the bus raise the defense of having exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family?

b) May D raise the same defense?

c) May X claim moral damages from both defendants?

d) May Z claim moral damages from both defendants? Give reasons for all
your answers.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) No. The owner of the bus cannot raise the defense because the carrier’s
liability is based on breach of contract.

(b) Yes. D can raise the defense because his liability is based on a quasi-
delict.

(c) Because X suffered physical injuries, X can claim moral damages against
D, but as against the owner of the bus. X can claim moral damages only if
X proves reckless negligence of the carrier amounting to fraud.

(d) Z can claim moral damages against both defendants because the rules on
damages arising from death due to a quasi-delict are also applicable to
death of a passenger caused by breach of contract by a common carrier
(Arts. 1755, 1756, 1764, 2206 and 2219, Civil Code).

Quasi-Delict (2005)

Under the law on quasi-delict, aside from the persons who caused injury to
persons, who else are liable under the following circumstances:

a) When a 7-year old boy injures his playmate while playing with his
father’s rifle. Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The parents of the 7-year old boy who caused injury to his playmate are liable
under Article 219 of the Family Code, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil
Code since they exercise parental authority over the person of the boy.
(Tamargo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044, June 3,1992;
Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977)

b) When a domestic helper, while haggling for a lower price with a fish
vendor in the course of buying food stuffs for her employer’s family, slaps the
fish vendor, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Employer of the domestic helper who slapped a fish vendor. Under

Article 2180, par. 5 of the Civil Code, “employers shall be liable for the
damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry.”

c)
A carpenter in a construction company accidentally hits the right foot of his co-
worker with a hammer. Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The owner of the construction company. Article 2180, paragraph 4 states that
“the owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions.”

d) A 15-year old high school student stabs his classmate who is his rival
for a girl while they were going out of the classroom after their class. Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The school, teacher and administrator as they exercise special parental

authority. (Art. 2180, par. 7 in relation to Art. 218 and Art. 219 of the Family
Code)

e) What defense, if any, is available to them?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The defense that might be available to them is the observance of a good

father of the family to prevent the damage. (Last par., Art. 2180, Civil Code)

Quasi-Delict; Acts contrary to morals (1996)

Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. Because of the Rent Control Law,
her landlord could not increase the rental as much as he wanted to,
nor terminate her lease as long as she was paying her rent. In order to force
her to leave the premises, the landlord stopped making repairs on the
apartment, and caused the water and electricity services to be